Slashdot Mirror
Car Glass Rules Could Impair Cell, GPS and Radio Signals In CA
An anonymous reader writes "The California Air Resources Board (CARB) just passed a new regulation that requires glazed glass in automobiles that is supposed to reduce the need to use air conditioning. The catch is that the same properties that block electromagnetic sunlight radiation also block lower frequency electromagnetic radio waves. That means radios, satellite radios, GPS, garage door openers, and cell phones will be severely degraded. Even more surprising is that it requires this glass even for jeeps that have soft covers, plastic windows, and no air conditioning.'"
You must be new to bureaucracies.
... people will have problems using cell phones while driving?
Oh darn. That's just horrible.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
My question is, who owns the rights to this technology they are going to enforce everyone to have?
It has everyone complaining about the stoopid government but did you notice that this was printed in a Detroit newspaper? Gee, I wonder why people in Detroit would care about a new type of glass in a car window that adds extra cost to a vehicle? You just got played due to your knee-jerk anti-government attitude. Regardless of whether you agree with the manufacturers or the government you should realize when you are being manipulated by the media.
More spending: they vote YES.
Raise taxes to pay for that spending: the vote NO
Have a windfall in tax revenues? Got to spend it! Can't save it for future budgetary shortfalls!
California is the most democratic state in the Union and look what happens. There's a reason why we're set up as a Republic.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
The private sector is already doing something much more stupid - namely, failing to use this glass for the 99% of car windows for which it makes sense. By comparison, requiring it in the 1% of cases (Jeep windows!) where it's not necessary is a little unfortunate but insignificant.
However, often the mythbusters' methodology is shaky, and from this short synopsis (I haven't seen that episode) this was one of those cases.
At 45 mph you will indeed get better mileage with the windows down (on most cars, YMMV). That's the first methodology fault. The faster you go, the more pronounced the drag. Under 40 you're better with the windows down, over 50 you're better off with them up. Nobody drives 45 on the interstate -- in fact, that's the minimum speed on most highways.
The second is, you have two different drivers with two different driving styles. The one who is able to keep closer to a steady speed is going to get the best mileage. If they had set the cruise control to 70mph and done the test, the computer would have matched the results.
Free Martian Whores!
"what we call a "Nanny State." That's a Bad Thing."
Why? A political catchphrase is not an argument, nor is it a description of an actually-existing thing. It's just a shout with no verbal content.
Think about this: real nannies exist for a reason. Real states also exist for a reason. There are certain situations where people collectively come to the decision that they don't *want* to tolerate certain types of destructive behaviour, because they cost us all. Any healthy group does this, because normal healthy humans are social creatures. We *like* to modify our behaviour so that it doesn't have stupid outcomes for the group. We call this "learning to socialise". The only people who think that a human must be an absolutely self-sufficient, take-nothing, give-nothing, hardcore screw-my-neighbour loner, are psychologically damaged individuals who haven't learned how to live with others.
It's one thing that such a syndrome exists. It's another that this psychological dysfunction has become a hugely powerful political movement. We don't need to bow down to this false idea of the heroic egotist fighting the mass of zombie sheeple trying to crush his freedom. Instead, look at each case on its merits and realise that collective problems do exist, society is not a bad thing, and that centralised responses sometimes are the right response and sometimes aren't.
So instead of just throwing a content-free slogan around, how about arguing why in *this* specific case, *this* kind of regulation is the wrong response to a serious societal problem?
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC